THE

LIBERTARIAN

ENTERPRISE

Issue

55

L. Neil Smith's

The Libertarian Enterprise

Number 55, September 15, 1999
Fire Still Burning

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

To receive a text version of The Libertarian Enterprise by
subscription, send an e-mail message to libent-request@ezlink.com
In the body of the message, please type: "subscribe [your email
address]" (without the brackets). E-mail distribution courtesy of Alan Wendt.

Permission is hereby granted to quote from The Libertarian
Enterprise, provided that the article is printed in full, recognition
is given to the author, and TLE is cited (please mention the issue
number).

You may also forward the text-based e-mail edition of TLE intact
without restriction (but be sure that your intended recipient will
welcome the rather large message in his/her mailbox!)

Note: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, the material
contained herein is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes,
and for other fair use purposes including criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research.

I must be making one king-hell omelet, 'cause I surely seem to be
breaking a lot of eggs lately. First things first.

Many of you noted that TLE was late last time. That circumstance is
entirely my fault, and I humbly apologize to all subscribers --
especially those who rely on e-mail delivery, which was even slower
than web-based delivery last issue. By way of explanation (not
self-defense), I have been having e-mail troubles lately -- troubles
that proved more difficult to resolve than they should have. But, if
you receive this edition on time, those problems are solved,
presumably for good.

Secondly, I owe a special apology to Scott Paul Graves, whose article
title I mangled in TLE #54. I attempted to correctly edit his
article's German title, and in the process got my pronouns crossed.
What was titled "WO SEINE DEINE PAPIEREN?" should have read "WO
SIND DEINE PAPIEREN?", as reader Scott Bieser correctly -- and
quite promptly -- informed me (see LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, this
issue).

Finally, there are two matters from my EDITOR'S NOTES column in TLE
#54. In one paragraph, I stated:

They pooh-poohed black helicopters and used them as a symbol of
"right-wing paranoia" -- at least until they were conclusively
proven to be quite real, along with all the curious and
frightening maneuvers associated with them.

A reader wrote and asked for a cite that proved my assertion. I was
forced to reply that I did not have a cite, but rather
believed that the body of evidence from articles posted from all
parts of the country indicate that in fact the concept
originally named the "black helicopter" theory was in fact valid. The
issue here is the changing nature of military training (MOUT, SOLIC,
OOTW) and its implications for American citizens ... not
whether the helicopters used are black or "very dark green".

As to the second matter, a friend responded to my notes on Waco,
specifically where I stated, "... I would be willing to bet that
those shooters were not FBI, but JTF6 (Delta)". He wrote:

Having lived in El Paso (JTF6 is located on Fort Bliss there), I
can tell you JTF6 are not Delta ... indeed, all they are is a
clearinghouse of sorts. If law enforcement is looking for
assistance from the military, they find the people to do the
job. They may find Delta or Seals or whatever is called for, but
they are not themselves an elite unit nor do they participate in
whatever it is law enforcement needs done. They obviously need
to do more oversight, but in real terms JTF6 are just military
bureaucrats.

While it is probably common practice to refer to any military
resources obtained through JTF6 as being "from" JTF6, if you
were to find the actual soldiers involved they'd certainly be
from a real Delta or Seal or Marine unit not affiliated with
JTF6. Obviously you'll have a hard time finding out who was on
the ground at Waco (or in the choppers) to ask them - as if that
would be the first question on your mind - but I'm certain that
is what they'd tell you as well. Saying they were actually JTF6,
and that JTF6 is Delta, is so easily disproven that it may be
one reason people don't give more credence to our side.

Here once again, the name (JTF6/Delta) is not the issue -- I am fully
aware of the differences (and the connections that they share). Note
that my correspondent does point out that it is "common
practice" to refer to troops obtained through JTF6 as from
JTF6, and that was exactly my intention. It is my understanding that
Justice requested assistance from JTF6, and that whichever
individuals were actually supplied were supplied as as result of that
request. It is also my understanding that those individuals were
Delta troops, who are, in fact, part of a larger organization in and
of themselves.

So to those who "... don't give more credence to our side" as a
result of any misimpression I may have fostered through my phrasing,
here are three analogies for you: (1) "It depends on what your
definition of 'is' is"; or, if that doesn't suit, perhaps (2) we
could examine the Democrats' stream-of-consciousness "oral defense"
for Clinton's behavior, focusing on the dirty deed ("everybody does
it") rather than the overt attempt to cover it up; and -- perhaps
most germane of all -- (3) if it turns out that the pyrotechnic
devices used at Waco were one kind of munition rather than another,
is that going to change the facts?

You see, as long as we spend time allowing ourselves to be distracted
from the real issues, or diverted from the real principles, we are
playing right into the hands of the FoE (Forces of Evil). And as long
as we engage in endless pointless arguments about whether Delta is
connected to JTF6, we're ignoring the issue of whether or not murder
was committed at Mt. Carmel. I, for one, believe that there is
sufficient evidence that it was. I, for one, believe that more than
an "independent investigator" is needed. Wasn't Danforth a proponent
of the AWB and the '94 Crime Bill? Doesn't he hate "assault weapons"?
Given his close ties to law enforcement and the feral government, is
he the man to investigate alleged government murder?

So, where apologies are due, there they are. And as for the rest, I
will never apologize for -- or be distracted from -- speaking
for